Free Law and Ethics Essay Sample
Sally, as the floor nurse who was in charge of Marjory who was their patient who had escaped had no choice than to change her statement, and indicate what she was being told by the Marjory physician and the director of the nursing service if at all she wanted to remain in her job, and provide for her children. Sally was to indicate that she had checked on the patient 15 minutes earlier, and had left her sleeping. Sally was to tell lies and indicate it if she never wanted to lose her job. The hospital was in probation, and if she never wanted her family, friends, and the entire community not to suffer, she would do it for them. Sally also had the option of not telling lies and say what exactly had happened to the patient. She could put the entire hospital at risk, and to the extent of her losing her job, but telling the truth of what had happened to Marjory. This would as well make her to be at peace with her.
There some of legal and ethical principles that Sally should consider as she decides whether to revise her notes as requested by the director of the nursing service, and the physician. First is the principle of helpful; this is doing well and avoiding doing evil to the others. This principles tells us that one should do no evil or harm to anyone, and if at all one knows that what he or she is doing will cause harm to anyone, he or she should not do it at all. Sally as the nurse who was in charge of taking care of the 85 years old Marjory who was a patient in their hospital should have taken good care of the patient. Sally said that she could not remember the last time she had looked at the patient. This is very bad because she was the one who was in charge, she could be looking at the patient each time, and if she had done so this could not have happened.
Might be the old Marjory felt neglected because there was no one to take care of her, and saw that the best thing was to escape from the hospital. Her death could have been caused by the negligence. So Sally should see that she should do no harm to the family, and therefore, she should tell them the truth about the cause of Marjory’s death. If she knew, she would not take good care of Marjory she would have said so that someone else more responsible could have been given the duty. Therefore, she should consider that before revising her note.
Sally should consider on the principle of being justice. Sally should carry her dignity and tell the truth of what had happened to the poor Marjory instead of just telling lies so that she could retain her position in the hospital. She could tell the truth, and being forgiven, and retains her job. However, the family would also decide for Marjory to be done a post mortem so that they could know clearly the cause of her death. This would lead the whole hospital to a big problem, they would all lose their jobs, and the hospital leads to being closed. Sally could also think of that before revising her note. There is the principle of human self-respect that Sally should consider as she decides whether to revise her notes or note. She should see that if she does not revise, her note, and indicate what she was told by the director of nursing and the physician, she would be denying herself the respect she had from her friends, and the entire community. Therefore, she might have to lie to retain the respect she had as a nurse in the community.
There is the principle of official and matter collaboration that says that it is impossible for one to do well without an evil does. Therefore, evil must be done in order for Sally to retain her job, and remain good to the community. Sally should consider this and know that in order to appear good to her family, friends, and the community at large she must do some evil of revising her notes and indicating what she was told by the director of nursing, and the physician that she had checked her patient 15 minutes earlier, and she might have died from a heart failure.
There are some conflicts in these principles because there is a principle that is telling us that we should do no evil to anyone at any particular time. It goes further, and says that if what one is doing will lead him or her in to doing evil he or she should not do it at all cost. He should avoid it as far as he can. There is also another principle that contradicts, and says that it is impossible for one to do a good thing without an evil act. These two principles are very contradicting one is telling us that Sally would be doing the right thing accepting to revise her notes because she will appear good to the family, and the public, and in addition to that retain her job. The other says that we should not harm others, and if there is an action that we may take will harm them, we should avoid the action. In this principle, Sally should not harm Marjory’s family by telling them lies then they come to know the truth. This is harming them in a way. This is a conflict, and it might confuse someone.
Like in these two principles which are one should do no harm or evil to any one, and if there is an action one should take that will lead him or her in to doing evil, he or her should avoid it, and in the principle that says it is impossible to do good without any evil, I would prioritize doing evil in order to achieve something good in the end. However I would take great caution while doing it so that I would not be on the wrong side of the law. This would help me attain what I want in future. So it is good for one to look on the brighter side of his future. So the director of nursing and the physician would were not wrong while they were telling Sally to revise on her note, and indicate as she was told by them if she wanted to retain her job so as to cater for her family as a single mother.
It is in the New York Times Magazines dated 15 March 2006 where they looked at the legal, moral, and ethical issues that surrounded prenatal testing for genetic defects. The New York Times Magazines reported that the termination of pregnancy due some defects in the infant is hardly told in open. The New York Times Magazines reports that the number of abortion done because of some signs of hereditary defects is going up every day. The Times reported that there is no law that should state that parents and doctors should not terminate any pregnancy. Actually, the law and most of the citizens blames the doctor for letting such an infant to be born while it would have been aborted long before it is born with some defects. They report that some states have given parents the permission to look for monetary compensation because of having a newborn child with a disability however; they have not provided affecting damages. It also reports that there was a bill that was made, and called the “Prenatally Diagnosed Condition Awareness Act” which would provide millions of dollars in centralized support to offer women who had some complications with updated information.
The bill was for the purpose of providing parents especially women with the information that the disabled child also has a life to live as any other person. The Times reported this bill was to shed right to the people, and know that they have no right to take a life because some genetic defects are detected on the child before it is born. The infant has the right to live even if she is disabled. The child might be disabled but useful in some ways. Moreover, only God who is suppose to give live, and to take. However, in some circumstances where the live of a mother is in danger, and the child she is carrying has to be terminated in order to save the life of the mother that should be allowed because the mother can give birth to another child. However, if the mother dies, and the child is saved, it would be very sad because the child will have no mum to breastfeed it and he may die. The article tries to show that everyone with has any disability or not have the right to live. The bill also tries to give information to women the disabled child should also live. So he should not be terminated. Everyone should be given a chance to live.